Have you ever wondered what would happen if swiping right replaced elections?

If so, you’re not alone. In his debut novel DISCO SOUR, loyal #TechAways reader Giuseppe Porcaro, Head of Communications at Bruegel, has dreamt up a world where that’s the reality.

Here at #TechAways, we love thinking about the future – especially one where a Tinder-like app defines politics. If you want to join a discussion exploring how technology is changing why we vote, who we love and how we live – join Giuseppe’s book launch on 24 May: For info and RVSP, click here. [...]

Here at #TechAways, we love thinking about the future – especially one where a Tinder-like app defines politics. If you want to join a discussion exploring how technology is changing why we vote, who we love and how we live – join Giuseppe’s book launch on 24 May: For info and RVSP, click here.

P.S. We’d love to celebrate the creative achievements of other readers! Just shoot us an email if you have something exciting to share.

We should rejoice that Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg is finally coming to Europe to make amends for the Cambridge Analytica scandal, right? But wait a minute. He’s chosen the very week that Europe’s data privacy shakeup – the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) – is taking effect. He’s insisting that his session in Brussels with MEPs is behind closed doors, in contrast to his public hearings with U.S. policymakers. And he’s bypassing parliamentarians in the UK, seat of Cambridge Analytica, to spend quality time with French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris. All the signs are that his apology tour of Europe could be a suicide mission.

Stuck in the job-hunting jungle? French startup Welcome to the Jungle is starting to think bigger – read ‘European’ – as it raises a funding round of €7 million. The Paris-based firm works with a video crew, photographers and writing staff to help more than 1,000 companies increase their exposure to job applicants. The startup’s Welcome Kit also helps them manage the applications received and make the whole recruiting process as smooth as possible. Welcome to the Jungle now wants to expand beyond French borders, eyeing Spain next – because when you’re high, you never, ever, want to come down.

A prominent YouTube personality is being sued for allegedly stealing the identity and persona of another (previously) famous YouTuber in a slightly confusing story full of stage names, dramatic accusations and, unfortunately, domestic abuse. Mars Argo (aka Brittany Sheets) has accused Poppy (Moriah Rose Pereira) and Titanic Sinclair (Corey Mixter) of transforming Poppy into a Mars Argo “knockoff”. If Mars Argo wins, it could set a precedent for YouTubers worldwide. But experts say the case is not specific enough in its complaints of infringement. At stake is whether Mars Argo is a well-defined enough character to be copyrightable. Mars Argo has requested a jury trial, so we will wait and see how the American public understands and cares about copyright issues.

If you are a royal wedding fan without a good memory for VIP names and faces, don’t panic Technology has you covered. An app using AI-based facial recognition software will – in real time – identify the guests and indicate their names and background information as they arrive for the ceremony. Even though it will bring the event into a techier dimension, it also raises privacy issues. Using AI-based recognition to identify people during an event, and sharing information collected with people using the app, might raise red flags for some. Hey, it’s not the 25th of May yet!

We have to admit, this one left some of the digital native generation at #TechAways bemused. Why would GDPR result in a decline in snail mail posted through the UKS’s Royal Mail service? Of all the consequences we’ve read about, this seemed particularly farfetched. But the Gen-Y crowd was reminded that a lot of posted mail consists of – for lack of a better word – spam. Analog spam still relies on all that personal data stored on a server somewhere. In a statement, the Royal Mail was direct in placing the blame: “Due to the potential impact of GDPR and, or, if business uncertainty persists, we expect to be at the higher end of the range of decline for 2018-19.” Stay tuned for other interesting GDPR snippets over the coming weeks – or months.

What a ride! Rarely have mere recommendations been so anticipated. Five years after the European retail action plan, nearly three after the single market strategy, building on five HLG reports, four workshops, three studies, one public consultation, and reflecting on a landmark ECJ ruling, here they are.

The Commission wants a competitive European retail sector and has formulated best practice guidelines in that regard, on 19 April. What’s in there? Some 17 recommendations, sometimes explicit, sometimes less so, for national authorities to facilitate retail establishment – e.g. shorten procedures for retailers to access the market; promote city centre vitality by other means [...]

]]>The Commission wants a competitive European retail sector and has formulated best practice guidelines in that regard, on 19 April.

What’s in there?

Some 17 recommendations, sometimes explicit, sometimes less so, for national authorities to facilitate retail establishment – e.g. shorten procedures for retailers to access the market; promote city centre vitality by other means than mere restrictions on the outskirts – and reduce day-to-day operational restrictions – e.g. allow retailers to source products from anywhere in the EU. The Commission also issued a practical guide for public authorities to help small retailers modernise.

The Communication, which addresses barriers that prevail mostly in brick-and-mortar retail, specifically calls for a level playing field between e-commerce and face-to-face retail. However the reasoning behind goes beyond the same old, sometimes empty dispute over whether or not e-commerce constitutes unfair competition. What’s at stake here is a smooth transition to omni-channel business models, driven by new shopping behaviour, requiring major restructuring across the retail value chain, and urging for consistency between the rules governing in-store sales and those governing online retail.

What makes retail a strategic sector is also its position in the value chain, so that reducing restrictions is expected to have positive spill-over effects across the single market, in other sectors, in particular upstream in manufacturing.

Why soft law?

And why did it take so long? “The task of regulating the retail sector lies primarily with Member States,” the Commission writes. Retail is a politically charged sector, touching upon sensitive matters like shop opening hours and urban planning.

The most recent example: the Visser judgement. The Court of Justice of the EU confirmed in January that retail is a service under the Services Directive; sub-conclusion of this landmark ruling: municipal zoning plans can prohibit certain retail activities outside city centres, yet only if they are proportional, non-discriminatory, and justified by public interest. This is at odds with quite a few countries’ position, headed by Germany and the Netherlands, which would rather not have to comply with the Directive when carrying out spatial planning.

Which brings us to the second reason why the Commission preferred best practices over a legislation: there is one already. The adoption of the Services Directive in 2006 resulted in certain legal and administrative barriers to retail activities being abolished.

But then, what’s the point?

The Services Directive is not properly implemented in EU countries – and this is certainly what stands out from the Communication, which looks like an implementation handbook more than anything else. Yet the Services Directive has an implementation handbook already, published in 2008.

As such, the best practices on their own have very little chance of tearing down those most restrictive, long-standing barriers on the European retail market, and the Commission knows it. The best practices “could serve as a toolbox helping Member States that received country-specific recommendations (under the European Semester) shape their future retail policies,” the Commission says. Yet again, country-specific recommendations are … recommendations.

What to hope for?

That the Commission is serious about using the best practices “for priority-setting in the framework of the Commission’s enforcement policy in the retail sector.” A ‘retail restrictiveness indicator’, released with the best practices, comparing exemplary and unruly Member States, is even here to help the Commission know where to look first.

No, retail is not immune to EU law; but the breadth of some remaining restrictions, at national, regional and/or local level, raises the question of whether retail is immune to EU law enforcement. The value of the best practices will be subject to whether the Commission has the ambition to challenge (big) Member States on violations of the Service Directive – and the Commission’s agenda in the coming weeks in relation to major pending cases will be a measure of that ambition. If the Commission is not prepared to use the stick, then the best practices carrot will just be garnish.

]]>10 tips working with the mediahttp://www.cambre-associates.com/10-tips-working-with-the-media/
Wed, 09 May 2018 09:12:36 +0000http://www.cambre-associates.com/?p=2511

Much is said about the demise of traditional media relations. But a shortlist of credible and trusted news sources can be influential and vital for advocacy efforts.

Despite the rise of social media and other modern ways to speak up, media are often the most relevant means to go public with a story. But journalists are often the right way to go exercise ones influence and differentiate oneself from the competitors. Because the Brussels EU landscape (and not only) is brimming with [...]

]]>Despite the rise of social media and other modern ways to speak up, media are often the most relevant means to go public with a story. But journalists are often the right way to go exercise ones influence and differentiate oneself from the competitors. Because the Brussels EU landscape (and not only) is brimming with multiple voices begging to be heard, journalists tend to be very selective when it comes to choose a valid and trusted news source. To catch a reporter’s attention, there are some dos and don’ts.

Therefore Cambre dedicated media team has set up a useful first aid kit for building a valuable relationship with media. Take the time to have a look at it before contacting journalists, it may prevent the door from slamming in your face.

]]>The power of datahttp://www.cambre-associates.com/the-power-of-data/
Mon, 07 May 2018 08:30:30 +0000http://www.cambre-associates.com/?p=2501

Data. Big data, aggregated data, personal data, traffic data, analytics, statistics – we hear about it all the time. As aware as we are of the great potential of data, and the need to use it more and better, the question remains – how can we harness it for our advocacy work?

The power of data is obvious – the more we have, the more informed our decisions can be. But when does it become too much? How can we prevent data overload in this information-centric data-driven society? There is no perfect, and certainly no “one-size-fits-all” solution. Data is everything Where can we use data? The short [...]

]]>The power of data is obvious – the more we have, the more informed our decisions can be. But when does it become too much? How can we prevent data overload in this information-centric data-driven society? There is no perfect, and certainly no “one-size-fits-all” solution.

Data is everything

Where can we use data? The short answer is: Everywhere. Data can be used to inform strategy, generate content and measure results. Data shows value, spots trends, backs up arguments, measures impact, and tracks progress. Measurable Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are excellent to show value and progress. Very few things show the true cost of a policy decision as well as a well-constructed impact analysis. Quantified trend reports, of media mentions for example, can give a quick overview of how a specific issue or organization is being portrayed and how tone of coverage and share of voice are evolving over time.

Data collection can be anything from quantitative and qualitative content analysis to surveys and focus groups, as well as more complex online sentiment measurement techniques.

Data can enrich and provide evidence for almost everything – but that doesn’t mean it’s always a good idea to collect it.

Purpose is king

Before collecting data, it is paramount to have a clear objective in mind. Data-collection can be very time and resource intensive, and it is easy to get caught up in repetitive and tedious data-collection routines. Data is pointless if we don’t know what we are going to do with it. For personal data, there is are even more grounds for having a solid purpose after 25 May when we enter the age of the new GDPR regulation. As with everything, a good data project starts with asking the right question – and it is a good idea to reassess data collection and analysis continuously, to see if they still respond to their purpose.

Don’t “collect and run”

Don’t do your data the disservice of not communicating about it properly. Transparency is key – especially regarding your data gathering methodology and potential gaps. Being honest about any existing shortcomings makes the output less vulnerable to attack. You can even go as far as to making the raw data available for further scrutiny for those interested.

Don’t expect people to dig in and understand the complexities of the data immediately –communicate about the data and make it “shine”. Design and visualization techniques are your allies when it comes to presenting data in a crisp and attractive way.

Data can enhance, engage and explain, but it can also confuse, contradict or convolute. Use data, but use it well!

]]>The EU charges ahead on batteries – in search of its own ‘pink bunny’http://www.cambre-associates.com/the-eus-battery-obsession-whats-going-on-whos-involved-and-why/
Wed, 02 May 2018 09:04:13 +0000http://www.cambre-associates.com/?p=2258

A battery obsession has taken root and grown over the past few months in Brussels, as the EU wakes up to the fact that it may be lagging behind in the global energy storage race. From FP9 to life-cycle emissions and environmental footprint, to conflict minerals and sustainable sourcing – batteries are all the rage in many policy proposals and initiatives currently being discussed in Brussels. We will try to shed some light on the EU’s sudden obsession with this technology – and what is going on.

What’s going on? Batteries have been around for decades. The main difference with today’s technology is scalability: from electric vehicles to home storage systems and industry-scale electricity assets, batteries are revolutionising sectors which had stayed relatively static for years. They have the potential to overhaul the way electricity markets operate, to genuinely propel the EU’s [...]

Batteries have been around for decades. The main difference with today’s technology is scalability: from electric vehicles to home storage systems and industry-scale electricity assets, batteries are revolutionising sectors which had stayed relatively static for years. They have the potential to overhaul the way electricity markets operate, to genuinely propel the EU’s energy transition forward and to slash emissions in transport – with invaluable health and climate benefits. There is a clear business case for mass production.

This is why global powers are investing so heavily in the technology, with China’s pipeline of battery plants set to triple the production of the rest of the world combined. It’s no surprise that the EU is seriously upping its game. In October last year the Commission announced the launch of an EU Battery Alliance, whose sole purpose is to boost the EU’s home-grown battery industry. Commissioner Sefcovic further stated that the EU’s battery market could be worth around €250 billion per year by 2025, with production needs from between ten and twenty Giga factories.

Another major trend is the need to look at batteries over their lifetime, and not focus solely on their technological applications. This opens a whole series of debates about sustainable production (are electric vehicles better than internal combustion engines if we consider life-cycle emissions?) as well as about ethical considerations (cobalt mining for lithium-ion batteries is problematic to say the least), and questions are starting to emerge on recycling and second-life use.

Who is involved?

Given the range of discussions around batteries, the stakeholder list is simply massive. In the Commission for instance, batteries are split between at least three DGs: DG ENER leads on energy storage topics and electricity markets, under the Clean Energy Package umbrella; DG ENV is responsible for issues relating to recycling, under the revision of the Batteries Directive; DG GROW has the lead from a competitiveness standpoint. To this list we can add Sefcovic’s Battery Alliance, DG CNECT’s focus on battery applications, DG RTD’s Horizon2020 – and the list goes on and on. From a business perspective, the whole value chain is concerned, from material sourcing (e.g. Umicore) to manufacturing (e.g. SAFT or Northvolt) and technology users (e.g. electric vehicle manufacturers), as well as the many EU associations representing these sections.

Why?

A question which is regularly raised in discussions on battery technology is whether it is actually ready for the applications it is envisaged for: do batteries really offer a cost-effective alternative to other options? A challenge which batteries face is that they offer few services that are not already provided by other technologies, and often at a lower price. Together with concerns about their capacity, charge efficiency and discharge loss have led to creating an image of an emerging technology which is not quite ready to hit the market, despite the significant leaps in recent years. But batteries are already much cheaper and more powerful than many (most) predicted – the call-price in 2017 for lithium-ion batteries for transport was between €200 and €300 per kWh, which is nearly half the price projected by experts in 2016 – see e.g. EASAC report). This becomes all the more lucrative with significantly lower renewable energy prices, particularly for solar photovoltaic.

More importantly – why now?

Beyond pure financial considerations, batteries have the potential to cure many of the EU’s broader headaches, which is why they are creating so much buzz. In a context of high political momentum around climate action, batteries can help to clean up the EU’s vehicle fleet and provide a go-to solution for the intermittency of renewable energy sources. In a context of the global technology race, investing in battery manufacturing can put Europe on a map where it is currently being overshadowed by China, South Korea and the US.

Next steps to watch out for: the Commission will publish the Battery Alliance’s action plan on 16 May, as well as Horizon 2020’s successor on 6 June (which is set to earmark significant funds for storage technologies). Market Design discussions also kick off again in June with aggregators, local energy communities and ownership of storage facilities all on the institutions’ agendas. In brief, expect batteries to be all over EU policy news for at least the next year. They will certainly keep going.

A proposal for increasing EU cooperation on vaccination, published by the European Commission on 26 April, contains some surprisingly ambitious ideas. The stated aim of proposal is to foster a levelling upwards of vaccination coverage so that, in the words of Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, “no child anywhere in the EU dies of a vaccine preventable disease”.

Much of the policy analysis accompanying the proposal focuses on “vaccine hesitancy”: people avoiding getting themselves or their children vaccinated, often due to fears about vaccine safety. The Commission has some interesting ideas on this. However, even more interesting, is its analysis of vaccine supply problems and its proposals for addressing these – particularly regarding [...]

]]>Much of the policy analysis accompanying the proposal focuses on “vaccine hesitancy”: people avoiding getting themselves or their children vaccinated, often due to fears about vaccine safety. The Commission has some interesting ideas on this. However, even more interesting, is its analysis of vaccine supply problems and its proposals for addressing these – particularly regarding development of new vaccines. Might these be a glimpse of future EU policy in the area of other pharmaceutical products such as medicines? Or will the proposal have its guts ripped out by Member States as soon as it gets to the Health Council?

The publication date for the Commission’s proposal was auspicious. It came out during European Immunization Week 2018, which runs 23-29 April. The World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Regional Office for Europe has been running this annual campaign since the mid-2000s, initially as a way to eliminate measles from the European Region. The Americas Region of WHO had eliminated measles in 2002. If Paraguay, Brazil and Mexico could stop endemic transmission of measles in their countries what was to stop France, Germany and Italy doing the same? Quite a lot, as it turned out. The WHO European Region, which stretches from Lisbon to Vladivostok and covers 53 countries, missed deadlines of 2010 and then 2015 for eliminating measles. Not only that, but Europe exported so many measles cases to the Americas that the virus became endemic again there. Most of the fault for this failure lay with the numerous EU Members States, including France, Italy, Germany and the UK, where the percentage of children receiving two doses of measles vaccine was too low to stop the virus causing periodic outbreaks.

The failure of EU countries to eliminate measles is not just embarrassing. It comes with a cost in terms of illness, deaths and hospital fees (people with severe illness from measles can spend weeks or months in intensive care). In 2017, EU countries reported nearly 15,000 cases of measles. This lead to 37 deaths in 2017: 26 in Romania, 4 in Italy, 2 in Greece and one each in Bulgaria, France, Germany, Portugal and Spain. A further 7 measles related deaths have been reported so far in 2018. (all figures fromECDC rapid risk assessment on measles in EU, March, 2018).

Why are so many children and young people in the EU unvaccinated against this deadly disease? In Romania many of the unvaccinated are in the Roma community. The health system has, in the past, found it difficult to connect with the Roma. This continues to be the case for some parts of this community. However, in the richer EU countries like France, Italy, Germany and the UK the big problem has been “vaccine hesitancy” among middle class parents. Economically secure, reasonably well-educated people are making an active decision not to get their children vaccinated against measles. They have a mixture of motives for this. Some believe it is healthier for their children to be infected with measles and develop “natural immunity” than to acquire immunity through vaccination. Others believe in a link between the measles vaccine and autism. This rumour is based on speculation in one scientific paper published in the UK in the 1990s. Even though that paper and its author, Dr Andrew Wakefield, have been thoroughly discredited since then, the rumour persists. Unfortunately, though, the internet and social media are full of misinformation, pseudoscience and conspiracy theories about the supposed dangers of vaccination.

Changing people’s beliefs, perceptions and behaviour in notoriously difficult. It requires more than just publishing authoritative scientific information, or conducting yet another large scale study that finds no link between measles vaccines and autism. In recent years, public health communicators have started using some of the techniques of the anti-vaccine movement. With the consent of the people involved, they have posted heart rending video-clips telling the stories of children left brain damaged by measles (click here for example). This and a range of interventions, like more proactive follow up with parents of unvaccinated children and catch-up vaccination programmes for teenagers who did not get the vaccine as children have helped the UK and Germany raise their vaccine coverage over the past few years. A 2017 law in Italy making measles vaccination compulsory for children enrolling in state schools also seems to have had a positive impact – though it is possible the incoming Italian government may repeal the law.

In its proposal and the accompanying policy documents, the Commission makes a convincing case of how it can support Member States in raising uptake of existing vaccines, such as the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine. There are innovative initiatives in many Member States, so there is certainly a role for the Commission in facilitating exchange of best practice and new ideas. There is certainly a need for more research on vaccine hesitancy and the factors that influence people’s decisions around vaccination. The EU’s research programmes can and should fund some of this research. Convening an EU-level stakeholder Coalition for Vaccination, as the Commission proposes, should be helpful. And most intriguing of all (to me at least) is the idea of conducting regular survey’s on the State of Vaccine Confidence in the EU. If the Commission can find a credible way of measuring and comparing vaccine confidence (several big ifs there…) this will be a valuable tool for assessing the impact of communication initiatives by Member States and other players (e.g. vaccines producers).

Another issue addressed by the Commission’s proposal is ensuring a steady and secure supply of vaccines. Manufacturing vaccines is a highly specialised and highly regulated business. For many vaccines there are just a handful of producers worldwide. The Commission notes there has disinvestment in production in the EU, possibly due to market fragmentation and unpredictable demand. The Commission offers support to making procurement and forecasting of demand more efficient – for example, by creating a virtual data warehouse on vaccine needs and stocks. The “virtual data warehouse” can help create a virtual EU stockpile of key vaccines to buffer Member States against supply shortage: this could possibly progress into being a real stockpile. Beyond this, though, the Commission seems to be proposing a bargain between Member States and the industry. The memo accompanying the Commission’s proposal notes that vaccination currently represents only 0.5% of healthcare budgets in the EU, and this percentage seems to be decreasing. However, “spending on vaccination should be regarded as an essential and smart investment in health, given its broader economic impact and societal value.” The underlying assumption seems to be that renewed political commitment to invest in vaccines and vaccination programmes by Member States will lead to new investment in production capacity by the industry.

The area where the Commission’s proposals are most intriguing is on development of new vaccines. It proposes developing “a roadmap of unmet population needs and agreed priorities for vaccines” to inform both EU and national research spending. There could also be “early dialogue with [vaccine] developers, national policy makers and regulator” to fast track authorisation of innovative vaccines relevant to emerging health threats. This looks like EU public health officials playing rather a hands-on role in identifying and supporting the research agenda for industry. With these same health officials complaining that spending on medicines is too much driven by what the industry offers, and not enough by what the public health system needs, might this be a glimpse of future EU pharmaceutical policy?

The Commission’s proposal needs to be debated and agreed by EU health ministers before it becomes a formal EU Recommendation. The European Parliament plenary in April adopted a resolution on vaccine hesitancy and the drop in vaccination rates in Europe and may also wish to give an opinion on this Recommendation. A number of ideas in the Recommendation, such as creating a common EU vaccination card and a common EU vaccine schedule have been discussed before in Council, notably during the Hungarian EU Presidency in 2011. They were, and no doubt still are, strongly opposed by a number of Member States, including most notably Germany. The Commission would like the Council to adopt the Recommendation by the end of 2018. It is by no means certain this will happen.

]]>Cambre adds EU Parliament ex-deputy chief Mario Mauro to senior teamhttp://www.cambre-associates.com/test-export/
Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:42:50 +0000http://cambre.lndo.site/?p=357Cambre Associates is strengthening its team of senior advisers with the addition of Mario Mauro, former Vice President of the European Parliament and former minister of defence in Italy. “We’re excited to be able to call on a European politician Mario Mauro’s stature to support our clients across sectors and geographies. With his EU connections [...]

]]>Cambre Associates is strengthening its team of senior advisers with the addition of Mario Mauro, former Vice President of the European Parliament and former minister of defence in Italy.

“We’re excited to be able to call on a European politician Mario Mauro’s stature to support our clients across sectors and geographies. With his EU connections and experience, he will immediately add lustre to our senior team,” Cambre CEO Tom Parker said.

Mario Mauro said: “I am looking forward to sharing experiences and to promoting networking and good practices with Cambre and its clients to support European growth.”

The appointment is via Cambre’s parent company, the SEC Group of independent consultancies.

About Cambre: We are a full-service public policy and public relations agency built for the challenges of today – and tomorrow. Creative yet pragmatic. Mid-sized yet global, with partners across Europe and beyond. We bring a collaborative approach to government relations, public affairs and public relations to spark the very best thinking and deliver results that matter.

The second Digital Day took place this week, a year after the Rome’s Digital Day.

What happened? A number of speeches by Commissioners (Gabriel, Ansip and Oettinger) supporting investment in digital in the next European multi-annual budget. VP Ansip called for “hard cash”. A number of panels with Ministries’ representatives that showed that governments are still very much made of MENisters. There were a number of declarations signed by many member states: on AI, on e-health, on blockchain, on 5G cross-border testing corridors and on the new Innovation Radar.

It was a digital High Mass for the Commission and Ministers. Let’s now see how their commitments and good intentions for Europe’s digital future translate into tangible results for citizens, businesses and governments. Rendez-vous next year? Across the pond, this week saw Facebook turn into Facecongress. Something unprecedented happened: Mark Zuckerberg wore a tie. [...]

It was a digital High Mass for the Commission and Ministers. Let’s now see how their commitments and good intentions for Europe’s digital future translate into tangible results for citizens, businesses and governments. Rendez-vous next year?

Across the pond, this week saw Facebook turn into Facecongress. Something unprecedented happened: Mark Zuckerberg wore a tie. Likely the most noteworthy aspect of two unsurprising days during which a well briefed Zuckerberg faced angry Congress(wo)men – some willing but unable to regulate the social media giant.

Europe is lagging behind in the digital world economy – no doubt about it. But whether we like or not, if we look at citizens’ privacy and data protection, it looks like it’s not the worst place to live.

The Facebook CEO’s strategy was to show remorse and deference. During his hearing with members of US Congress, Mark Zuckerberg also seemed sometimes amnesic when asked to explain the existence of shadow profiles or even to name the company’s competitors. When it comes to telling whether Facebook’s tools on external websites collected transaction data, he lost the plot. With European and US citizens being ever more concerned and cautious about the use of their data, policymakers on both side of the Atlantic are under scrutiny to come with legal solutions to protect people’s privacy.

The era of Silicon Valley and Washington ignoring each other is long gone, as tech companies are now spending millions per year to lobby policymakers and use think tanks to shape policy debates around their tech. Facebook’s PAC and employees made political contributions totaling $4.5 million in 2016, Google’s parent company Alphabet contributed $8 million. And as it has become increasingly obvious that many in US Congress do not fully understand the tech they are regulating, these tech giants clearly have the upper hand and will surely be major players in the legislation coming around the corner to prevent the next Cambridge Analytica scandal.

What do the Sony Ericsson W810i, library stamps and the Opel Astra F have in common? They’re all dying tech, about to disappear from our daily lives – and with them the sound they make. Online museum ‘Conserve the sound’ stores “vanishing and endangered sounds”, for future generations and for the nostalgic ones. The project is not new, having been funded first in 2013, but the collection has grown bigger. You can even submit your own endangered sounds, like Nigel Farage’s monthly yapping in Strasbourg, compulsively disturbing the sound of silence.

The recent Facebook and Cambridge Analytica fallout has left many wondering, what data have they been sharing and where the heck has it been going? To set the scene – imagine you set a friend date with some mates. From the cross-platform messages you sent to arrange Netflix and (really) chill, where is your data being used? From catching an Uber to ordering that thin crust pizza on your Amex black (we wish!) and posting some pics to Insta, it’s highly likely that even modern nights-in leave a massive data trail. Perfectly tailored Netflix suggestions for the next movie don’t come free, and data is the currency of the day. We love this step-by-step walk through dissecting how data features in a night with friends, check it out!

Welcome to #TechAways, where our talented tech team – full of voracious readers – introduces you to our selection of the top stories we’ve read each week. We’re here to help you keep up with the hottest developments in the tech world and their implications for Europe.

Status: public? [New York Times] Grindr, the dating app for gay, bisexual and transgender men is in hot water this week. European researchers found the company was sharing data with outside software vendors that included sexual tastes, intimate details and importantly – users’ H.I.V. status. In a statement, the company said this type of data-sharing is a standard [...]

Grindr, the dating app for gay, bisexual and transgender men is in hot water this week. European researchers found the company was sharing data with outside software vendors that included sexual tastes, intimate details and importantly – users’ H.I.V. status. In a statement, the company said this type of data-sharing is a standard industry practice. While that may be true, as policymakers on both sides of the pond are reeling from the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook fallout and prepping for GDPR to come into force, the bigger question is – should it be, and will it be in a few months’ time

ICYMI, sadly on Tuesday there was a shooting at YouTube’s San Bruno, California campus. The shooting came on the heels of the March for Our Lives rallies that took place around that world promoting smart gun control measures. Following the rallies, YouTube announced it was banning several types of gun-related content. Unexpectedly (we assume), some gun vloggers moved their video operations to the porn site Pornhub. While banning the videos was a clear step towards tackling gun violence in the US on behalf of the tech giant, we wonder if the shooting on its own campus will prompt further corporate action in a policy area where political inaction is the norm.

New Story and tech start-up ICON think that 3D printing can bring affordable housing to the more than 1 billion people in the world living in slums. After debuting their prototype, they plan to build 10 homes in El Salvador later this year and an entire village of over 100 houses by early 2019. They use a supersized 3D printer with a proprietary concrete mixture that is liquid enough to ooze rapidly into slabs but dense enough to quickly solidify. In 24 hours, you can have a cosy and durable house for 3 to 4 people. The price tag? The developers believe they can eventually build these houses for as little as $4,000.

50+ leading AI and robotics researchers announced a boycott of South Korea’s KAIST University over fears they will work to create AI-powered weapons with Hanwha Systems, a company they’ve brought on as a new partner in a research institute. Hanwha produces autonomous weapons, one of which is currently being used on the border between North and South Korea. Google employees have also expressed concern over their company’s contract with the US Defense Department, giving the Pentagon access to Google’s cloud-based AI service to identify images taken by drones. Employees sent around a petition to remind Google that its motto is ‘Don’t be Evil’, but surely they won’t be alone in taking a stand.

At some point, we’ve all been victims of fake news. Disinformation isn’t a creation of the digital age in the 21st century. However, it’s been able to spread and reach an incalculable number of people since social media emerged. Some online platforms have made it possible to destroy the barriers to generating fake news, in the process boosting the distrust towards media. So when you read stories online, make sure they aren’t commercially-driven sensational content, nation state-sponsored misinformation, highly-partisan news sites, satire or parody and that they don’t come from social media. Good luck!

Villawho? [Bloomberg] We’re leading today with the big AI news out of France, where Cedric Villani, winner of the Fields Medal and a French MP, is a rising star. He’s the human brain behind France’s 150-page AI strategy unveiled on Thursday, an influential ambassador pushing mathematics- and science-based education and policies. The plan at first [...]

We’re leading today with the big AI news out of France, where Cedric Villani, winner of the Fields Medal and a French MP, is a rising star. He’s the human brain behind France’s 150-page AI strategy unveiled on Thursday, an influential ambassador pushing mathematics- and science-based education and policies. The plan at first glance seems well researched, well hyped and well packaged (a nice website and in catchy English). But will it be well received? This might serve as an inspiration for a different way to make – and present – policy in the EU.

ICYMI, the city of Atlanta, the capital of Georgia, was held hostage by a ransomware. From Thursday last week until Tuesday of this week, the city government’s digital systems were being held for ransom. Residents couldn’t pay water bills online, report potholes, or access the city’s website. Had a layover at the busiest airport in the world – ATL? No wifi for you. This attack was one of the best coordinated and biggest attacks on urban infrastructure to date, impacting an area of 6 million inhabitants. While critical infrastructure like those for 911 calls was left untouched, will the next victim – potentially in Europe – be so lucky?

Where will fintech stop? It can do what old-school banking has done since the dawn of finance – and do it better. The latest disrupter comes from Sweden. Online mortgage provider Enkla offers much lower interest rates than the banks overseen by Swedish regulators. Authorities are only just catching up and say Enkla won’t need to meet the same rules that apply to banks until 2019. Meanwhile, Enkla is receiving some 1 billion SEK (€100 million) worth of applications, per hour. So where will fintech stop? There is growing concern among traditional bankers that there may be no answer to this question.

Virtual reality isn’t just for geeky gamers. A British startup designed a suit that can give a sense of touch when playing VR games, providing innovative healthcare implications. The suit can help stimulate the muscles of paraplegics and people with physical disabilities. VR has often showed that it can benefit disabled people by facilitating travel or by helping those who have brain injuries to be more independent. In the coming years, researchers and engineers will definitely find multiple ways to apply technology in health and healthcare.

Still on the VR train – this is a *very* long read, but well worth it. You’ve surely heard of out-of-body or near-death experiences, and probably had your doubts about their validity. One thing is certain: the people that claim to have had these experiences always feel profoundly changed afterwards. This piece tracks research on that subject and how it’s morphed in the digital age. Virtual embodiment, a new area of research funded by the EU, studies how experiences in VR can redefine how humans define and experience themselves. It’s a bit complex to describe in this short space, but read on for more on how it’s had an impact on domestic violence rates and the researcher’s visions for how it might be applied to other areas.

As US states continue to cut public health and family planning funding, apps like NURX aim to maintain women’s access to birth control. The app allows women to input health data, receive advice on the best contraceptive for them, and receive that medicine at their door. The service is often free or around $15. This is a boon to the hundreds of thousands of women who don’t have health insurance for doctor’s visits or prescriptions. It is especially useful for those who live in “contraceptive deserts” where access to women’s health services is nearly impossible. As these deserts continue to grow, especially in large states like Texas, we can expect to see more and more technology being used to try to fill in the gaps.

Since the story about Cambridge Analytica’s abuse of Facebook data broke, many users have been deleting their profiles. Celebrities such as Elon Musk, Brian Acton and Jim Carrey have also jumped on the bandwagon and are encouraging others to follow suit.

Is it that easy to quit Facebook? The short answer is: no.

It’s not that easy because, naively, we forget how deeply Facebook is rooted in our society and how we use many of the services it provides every day. If you search on Google for “alternative to Facebook” the first result (no it isn’t Google+) is an article by WIRED recommending a total of seven [...]

It’s not that easy because, naively, we forget how deeply Facebook is rooted in our society and how we use many of the services it provides every day. If you search on Google for “alternative to Facebook” the first result (no it isn’t Google+) is an article by WIRED recommending a total of seven different apps to replace what Facebook does. If you want to move away from ‘the’ social network, you may need to find a replacement to cover the following:

Messenger: to stay in touch with family and friends (WhatsApp is great but it’s owned by Facebook and you don’t have all your Facebook contact telephone numbers).

Events: to invite people to your birthday party or housewarming, as well as to be invited to and stay up to date on other events.

Birthday reminders: if you are one of those who don’t miss a single birthday wish, it’s probably a feat powered by Facebook.

MarketPlace: Yes, you can buy stuff on Facebook too.

Groups: Groups killed the forum stars, and that’s a good thing.

Third-Party Logins: Handy to avoid filling in a form each and every time you sign up on a new site.

We could also add ‘Pictures’ and ‘Live stream’ (WIRED forgot about them apparently) which bring the number of apps or platforms needed to replace Facebook up to a minimum of nine!

Would all Facebook users leave the network to install all these apps? It’s doubtful!

Furthermore, WIRED concludes saying that deleting Facebook won’t

“…change the online digital economy that profits by collecting your personal information and selling it to data brokers. Facebook collects arguably the most private information, but plenty of other popular social networking apps like Snapchat and Twitter collect your data too.”

So what can you do?

Well, the Cambridge Analytica scandal may have created room for new business ventures that take data privacy seriously. The problem is, nobody has created a real alternative to Facebook that offers the same services without giving away user data*.

Why has it not happened yet? Well, because there are more questions than answers at the moment and we wonder if data safety and privacy would be enough to move millions of users away from Facebook. Some considerations:

If a new platform doesn’t have access to your data, it may struggle to make money. How should it be financed? Are users willing to pay for these services? This could mean the end of advertising campaigns and tailored preference-based content.

Even if a new platform emerges tomorrow morning, how many people would make the switch? Would you join a platform if none of your friends are there? Remember Google+?

The new platform would never have the same level of user connections that Facebook has, at least not at the beginning. Think about all the friend requests you sent over the last 10 years. Would you start sending them again? I bet no. So, would a less interconnected social network be appealing for new users?

Last but not least, there are 2.2 billion monthly active users on Facebook (crazy, right?) and the numbers keep on growing. Can that be stopped?

Getting rid of Facebook is not an easy feat and creating a successful alternative may take years. Not even a dozen Elon Musks are likely to bring down such a deeply engrained piece of social machinery. At the same time, nothing is forever, so we might just have to sit on the dock of the bay to see what will happen.

*You may find some websites advertising single platforms which are supposed to be an alternative to Facebook (read this one) but the truth is, no one offer all Facebook’s services altogether.

If you work in healthcare you have most likely come across the acronym VBHC, or value-based healthcare. But would you be able to explain what VBHC is to your child, sister or grandpa in a way that they would understand? And, most importantly, could you reflect on the contribution it makes and the potential it has to support the delivery of healthcare in practice?

An increasing number of us are discussing the principle of VBHC, but how many are pondering the challenge of consistency in definition and transition from theory to practice within the changing healthcare landscape? If you find it difficult, you are not alone. An “unhealthy” situation Over the last decade, health systems all over the world [...]

]]>An increasing number of us are discussing the principle of VBHC, but how many are pondering the challenge of consistency in definition and transition from theory to practice within the changing healthcare landscape? If you find it difficult, you are not alone.

An “unhealthy” situation

Over the last decade, health systems all over the world have faced a growing number of common challenges. The media has been full of stories about the increasing cost of healthcare, ageing populations, the rise in chronic diseases and multi-morbidity, shortages, waste and uneven distribution of health professionals, health inequalities and inequities in access, to name just a few. Definitely not a rosy situation.
More dramatically, an evident and growing mismatch has developed between what is considered proof of success in healthcare delivery, versus what is actually valuable to patients. Not surprisingly, it has generated rising dissatisfaction among both healthcare providers and receivers.
Conventional healthcare metrics measure outcomes that include the number of clinical admissions, length of stay in hospital and number of interventions. By contrast, patients are more focused on factors such as quality of life, functional ability and emotional well-being. Honestly, can you blame them?

What adds value to care?

In this context, the need for healthcare reform has become increasingly evident and the concept of VBHC has emerged as a potential answer. In fact, while traditional ways of defining value in healthcare are mainly based on economic efficiency, VBHC promotes a model that adds quality and patients experience into the equation. In short, VBHC is the art of improving healthcare delivery, while at the same time reducing costs where inefficiencies exist.
Sounds nice, doesn’t it? But how exactly can this still relatively abstract concept become more a part of our everyday lives? While notable case studies of organisations and institutions embracing VBHC models already exist1, there is not yet a clearly defined and harmonised vision or policy framework for VBHC.

In particular, there is still a general uncertainty when it comes to identifying enablers that would fully realise VBHC. This is made even more complicated by the fact that VBHC touches upon so many areas and phases of healthcare delivery. It involves a massive diversity of players including hospitals, healthcare providers, reimburses and insurers. So, what can be done?

Enabling VBHC

VBHC needs to be more clearly linked to existing and future policy developments. This can occur by bridging its broad principles established by Prof. Michael Porter of Harvard Business School, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement, The Economist Intelligence Unit and the VBHC Center Europe (to name just a few) to concrete models and case studies that reward performance over volume2. Until this happens, VBHC cannot fully materialise.
An effort has to be made by the medical community, industry and policy-makers to clarify the measures and factors that would facilitate and enable VBHC. There are many EU policy areas where VBHC could play a crucial role. For example, within the current debates on EU cooperation on Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Healthcare Systems Performance Assessment (HSPA), sustainability and strategic investment in healthcare, procurement legislation, big data, funding projects and more.
VBHC should not be treated with a typical empirical approach and we believe its success will depend on a comprehensive course of action, combining top-down and bottom-up methods. This would allow for best practices to be systemically collected and incorporated in health policies, which in turn would provide the clear framework to enable more VBHC in the future. If, as a community, we help VBHC to keep its promises, we will have finally brought back the human factor to what could truly be called patient-centric care.

Ouf, it’s been a rough week for tech. Through some great reporting by The Guardian and Channel 4, we learned the truth behind Cambridge Analytica and their role in recent global elections, notably the 2016 US presidential election. Key to that revelation was how lax Facebook’s approach to data-sharing has been. While this may not [...]

Through some great reporting by The Guardian and Channel 4, we learned the truth behind Cambridge Analytica and their role in recent global elections, notably the 2016 US presidential election. Key to that revelation was how lax Facebook’s approach to data-sharing has been. While this may not have been a hack or data breach in the strictest use of the term, it was most certainly a breach of trust. Giving access to users’ personal data to third parties, even those parading as researchers, seems flawed in hindsight. Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg are both on the defensive, with regulators on both sides of the pond demanding answers.

In other unmissable tech news this week, the world has experienced its first death tied to an autonomous vehicle. Sadly, we fear this tragedy may happen again as cars begin the process of learning of driving in real world conditions. In 2016 alone, the EU counted 25,500 (human caused) road fatalities. This death is horrific, but the aggregate experience of automated driving could drastically reduce the total global road fatalities.

Facebook. Personal data. Steve Bannon. Russian information warfare. Super PACs. Cambridge University. 20-something Canadian with pink hair. Billionaire political backers. Reading this piece we weren’t sure if we were beholding reality or the latest episode of Scandal. It’s hard to summarise this great journalism in a few words – so we will just say, if you have any interest in the future of technology, social media, privacy or democracy, please check it out. Also watch the multi-part documentary from Channel 4: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

ICYMI, a woman in Arizona died Sunday in what is believed to be the world’s first fatality caused by an autonomous vehicle on a public road. Tragic as it is, those familiar with the numbers know road deaths today – caused by humans – are a huge problem. Globally, road traffic is the fifth leading cause of death. Automated vehicles provide the possibility to radically reduce that number, but this will take time. Uber, the car’s operator, has suspended its autonomous vehicle operations in Pittsburgh, Tempe, San Francisco, and Toronto. Here’s hoping that the regulatory reaction will be measured, giving the technology time to develop.

No data, no AI, This is a challenge for competitiveness. No privacy, no trust; this is a challenge for citizens. France, under President Emanuel Macron’s push, is trying to position itself at the center of a European AI-based tech ecosystem and to find a balance between data’s use and privacy. France will publish an AI strategy next week while the European Commission is working on an AI strategy of its own. The success of both will depend on companies’ ability to share and access data while protecting privacy. Quite the challenge… it’s a hard balance to strike.

Amnesty International recently launched a #ToxicTwitter campaign, advocating an end to violence and abuse against women online. The group claims that Twitter fails to prevent the spread of a toxic environment for women on its platform. Despite the company’s announcement in February of new measures to better protect users from abuse and harassment, Amnesty International believes the platform isn’t doing enough. According to a survey of 1,100 British women carried out by the NGO, 78% of the respondents don’t see Twitter as a place where they could share their opinion without receiving threats. Social media has much to do towards protecting women’s rights online.

Social media platforms and the rest of the tech community have long been joined at the hip. With all the controversies besetting the erstwhile poster children of the internet’s power to connect, particularly Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal, this is changing. Big tech is no longer big. Tech firms and organisations no longer want to be seen to be clubbing with social media. Interesting to see how this plays out in Europe.

On Friday we will know if the UK, despite concerns from Spain about Gibraltar, has secured a 21-month Brexit transition, allowing time until 31 December 2020 to prepare for the final legal reality of the future UK-EU relationship.

If they do, this will undoubtedly be met with some relief by business, as the prospect of the mad scramble to assess vulnerabilities, audit contracts, review customs readiness and ensure adequate cash-flow (with the return of VAT payable and duties) seemingly recedes. The extension also provides breathing space for sectors that have time sensitive Brexit [...]

]]>If they do, this will undoubtedly be met with some relief by business, as the prospect of the mad scramble to assess vulnerabilities, audit contracts, review customs readiness and ensure adequate cash-flow (with the return of VAT payable and duties) seemingly recedes.

The extension also provides breathing space for sectors that have time sensitive Brexit concerns, like airlines that often sell tickets up to a year in advance. It will also enable authorities on both sides of Channel to put in place the personnel, procedures and systems to minimize the risk of the most visible negative manifestation of Brexit: long queues of trucks with blocked goods at pinch points like Dover, Calais and Ostend the morning after Brexit.

However, despite all of this, the real value of this transition agreement to business and the economy remains to be seen. Even with an additional 21 months, time is still very short and business is no closer to legal certainty, with the transition agreement conditional on full, final agreement. As Michel Barnier said, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” and the not insignificant questions of Ireland and dispute settlement, amongst others, remain.

Furthermore, by taking this step “forward”, the UK is now cruising to life outside the EU customs union and the single market and that reality is stark. In the absence of legal certainty, there is the growing certainty that the UK’s relationship with the EU will be like that of any other 3rd country after the transition period is over. Business will need to be ready for the major changes that implies.

So while we might not see a succession of headlines about organisations moving operations outside the UK in the weeks ahead, planning for Brexit will accelerate and it would be surprising if many business altered their “worst case” scenario plans, transition or not. On the customs front alone business will need, amongst many things, to: assess additional customs brokerage costs, evaluate customs software capability, determine preferential content supplied to the UK, dialogue with suppliers to understand their Brexit readiness….

The Brexit clock is at two minutes to midnight and for many, if not most, much work remains to be done.

20 Mar 2018

In the age of fake news, a shortlist of credible and trusted news sources can be influential and vital for advocacy efforts. Relationships with journalists matter now more than ever. In this webinar we walk you through the journalist tribes of Brussels, explain the pressure they’re under, and give practical tips for successful engagement

Featured Topic & Speakers Much is said about the demise of traditional media relations. But in the age of fake news, a shortlist of credible and trusted news sources can be influential and vital for advocacy efforts. Relationships with journalists matter more than ever in the crowded Brussels lobbying landscape where bureau numbers are dwindling. [...]

Much is said about the demise of traditional media relations. But in the age of fake news, a shortlist of credible and trusted news sources can be influential and vital for advocacy efforts. Relationships with journalists matter more than ever in the crowded Brussels lobbying landscape where bureau numbers are dwindling. Often a journalist won’t open an email let alone answer a call unless they know and rate the person it’s from.

Cambre’s dedicated media team will draw on their backgrounds as Brussels correspondents to describe:

The different journalist tribes covering the EU and the pressure they face to make sense of complex issues for readers against rolling deadlines.

Speakers:

]]>The CJEU in Slovakia v Achmea: the end of ISDS in the EU…?http://www.cambre-associates.com/the-cjeu-in-slovakia-v-achmea-the-end-of-isds-in-the-eu/
Thu, 15 Mar 2018 15:31:29 +0000http://www.cambre-associates.com/?p=1566

Last week the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled in the Slovakia v Achmea case that an arbitration clause in the Slovakia-Netherlands Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) was incompatible with EU law, as it had an “adverse effect” on the autonomy and effectiveness of the Union’s legal order. The ruling is ground-breaking for the arbitration world, as it may spell the end of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) among EU Member States.

But it also raises many questions and has implications for the wider EU community. Let us see why. What happened In short, the Dutch health insurer Achmea BV sued Slovakia for damages under a BIT with the Netherlands before an arbitral tribunal established in Frankfurt (i.e. applying German law). The tribunal rejected Slovakia’s opposition to [...]

]]>But it also raises many questions and has implications for the wider EU community. Let us see why.

What happened

In short, the Dutch health insurer Achmea BV sued Slovakia for damages under a BIT with the Netherlands before an arbitral tribunal established in Frankfurt (i.e. applying German law). The tribunal rejected Slovakia’s opposition to its jurisdiction as incompatible with EU law, and awarded EUR 22.1 million in compensation. Slovakia tried to annul the award in German courts, lost, and appealed to the German Federal Court of Justice, which referred a preliminary question to the CJEU.

The CJEU found that while the arbitral tribunal might deal with the interpretation or application of EU law – notably fundamental freedoms – it is not itself part of the judicial system of the EU or its Member States. The CJEU therefore considered that German law allowed insufficient judicial review of the arbitral award to ensure the effectiveness and autonomy of EU law, and ruled that Articles 267 and 344 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be interpreted as precluding arbitration clauses in intra-EU BITs. Clear, right?

What it means: investment questions…

With this decision the CJEU essentially ruled that arbitration clauses in intra-EU BITs are incompatible with EU law – which has serious potential implications for the 196 BITs in force between EU Member States. The immediate consequence of this judgment should be that the German Federal Court will set aside the arbitral award. This may affect investors and their investments, as the same might apply to other clauses in other BITs, so other arbitration proceedings might be challenged on similar grounds, perhaps even under the Energy Charter Treaty. This could be a headache for some EU businesses, especially those active in cross-border projects on energy, infrastructure, utilities or public procurement. Similarly, it may prompt investors to avoid this risk and seek protection through BITs with non-EU states by arranging their investments via entities outside the EU.

However, one may also argue that the impact should not be exaggerated yet. First, the ruling has no implications for commercial arbitration, which derive from the will of private parties, not Member States. Secondly, it is based on the fact that the arbitral proceedings endangered the functioning of EU law because of the law applicable to the case (i.e. German law). This is, the same might not be valid for arbitration in other fora that allow more judicial review of awards. Thirdly, in terms of giving effect to the CJEU ruling, the ball is now back in the German Federal Court’s court – so let us wait and see how it plays out in practice.

…and some trade policy answer

Some may notice this CJEU ruling for going against the opinion of the Advocate General (as well as Germany’s in a request from a German court), which is rather uncommon. Judicial comity aside, the case is however unsurprising in that it strongly protects and fosters the autonomy of EU law, and notably the exclusive competence of the CJEU to interpret it. Interestingly, the CJEU reasoning stresses EU law’s guarantee of fundamental rights against the possibility of relying only on the arbitral tribunal for judicial review. It thus somewhat weighs against ISDS in the everlasting public debate about whether arbitration encroaches on public interest as “private justice”, disregarding human rights and the environment in favour of investors’ interests.

This ruling may thus not only kick-start the end of ISDS among EU Member States. It may also be seen to deal another blow to the nowadays “infamous” ISDS that politically killed TTIP, almost killed CETA, and granted a say to the Council and the European Parliament in trade matters through the Singapore opinion. On ISDS, deemed so undemocratic by many and so crucial to protect investors from foreign governments by as many others, the Court indeed points to the importance of solidarity and mutual trust among fellow EU Member States. Of course this does not mean that ISDS may soon disappear worldwide. But with EU Member States participating in many of the roughly 2,500 investment agreements in force globally, what the EU says and does matters greatly.

Perhaps more importantly, the ruling serves as a kind reminder that the CJEU is usually not “happy to discuss” on matters relating to its exclusive competence on the EU legal order and the autonomy of EU law. This may reinforce the Commission’s call to terminate intra-EU BITs, but also inform its latest trade policy endeavours, notably the current quest to establish a multilateral investment court. It may also remind those Member States which play with nostalgic alliances (read V4 or returning Hanseatic Leagues) or bilateralism (think of the Franco-German pact) that the EU is chiefly one legal order, and not only an intergovernmental organisation for their use. Finally, this may make for another interesting read in London, when the UK government will – hopefully – put forward a proposal for an EU-UK dispute settlement mechanism with jurisdiction over the withdrawal agreement and transition period.

In other words, stay tuned, as the laws of international trade and investment, just like the politics of the EU and Brexit, they are a-changing.

]]>EUssentials reimagined – The EU in the palm of your hand, in real timehttp://www.cambre-associates.com/eussentials-reimagined-the-eu-in-the-palm-of-your-hand-in-real-time/
Wed, 07 Mar 2018 15:40:53 +0000http://www.cambre-associates.com/?p=1580The Cambre Associates team is excited to announce the launch of its revamped and vastly improved EUssentials smartphone application. Our app was first launched in 2010 to bring the EU institutions and leading political figures to the palm of your hand. But as we all demand more and more immediacy and access to real-time information [...]

]]>The Cambre Associates team is excited to announce the launch of its revamped and vastly improved EUssentials smartphone application. Our app was first launched in 2010 to bring the EU institutions and leading political figures to the palm of your hand. But as we all demand more and more immediacy and access to real-time information from our phones, it was about time to release a new EUssentials. Bigger, better looking, easier to use and with tons of real-time information.

Whether you are a public affairs or public relations professional, a journalist or an MEP, EUssentials will be your digital compass to navigate the Brussels jungle.

In addition to all the great functionalities we already had in EUssentials, the new version brings the news that matters straight to your device. Subscribe to any of the policy categories in the Newsroom and be notified in real time whenever the EU institutions and main EU agencies publish an update (e.g. press release, reports, statements, etc.) on the topics you are following. Want to get the midday briefing on your phone? No problem, EUssentials has got you covered.

You can also follow MEPs and Commissioners and get notifications whenever they publish a statement, cast a vote or make a plenary intervention in Strasbourg.

And that’s not all. As your guide to key EU officials, the app provides you with the contact details, social media accounts and responsibilities for all MEPs as well as all Commissioners’ contacts and those of their cabinets. It also includes the contacts of all Commission spokespeople, the list of EU presidencies until 2030 and who to contact.

You name it, we have it

Could there possibly be more? Absolutely. The app can provide directions to the main EU buildings in Brussels, Strasbourg and Luxembourg. Never get lost running between meetings at DG JUST and DG CNECT again. Seeing red trying to remember if it is a green week? The European Parliament calendar for 2018 is at your fingertips in the app and includes the option of saving events straight into your phone.

Stop getting lost in the EU labyrinth and keep the EU institutions in the palm of your hand. Get EUssentials today!

With the EU to set out its latest guidelines on the Brexit negotiations later today, much attention will be given to the negative reception to Theresa May’s pick and mix approach to accessing the single market. In particular, financial services and her dashed hopes for the City continuing to access the EU single market through mutual recognition will be headline news.

Less prominent but no less important will be the likely reception that will be given to May’s proposals on customs. Of intrinsic importance to the free flow of trade, the integrity of the market either side of the channel and the Northern Ireland question, May’s position on customs in her speech last Friday built on [...]

]]>Less prominent but no less important will be the likely reception that will be given to May’s proposals on customs. Of intrinsic importance to the free flow of trade, the integrity of the market either side of the channel and the Northern Ireland question, May’s position on customs in her speech last Friday built on a paper released last August setting out two models for a new customs deal with the EU.

The first of these models, a new “Customs Partnership”, is, in the words of the UK government itself, based on an unprecedented approach, where the UK would mirror the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world where their final destination is the EU (not the UK). Novel in thinking, it has raised many questions amongst the business community and does not fill EU negotiators with excitement.

The second, a “highly streamlined customs arrangement” would look to take advantage of existing customs arrangements such as the Common Transit Convention (CTC); include measures to promote trade facilitation, for example a continued waiver from the requirement to submit entry and exit summary declarations for goods being moved between the UK and the EU; and implement technology-based solutions to facilitate compliance with customs procedures.

At the heart of the second model is the idea of reducing pressure and the risk of delays at ports and airports by mutual recognition of “authorised economic operators” and a technology-based pre-arrival notification system. The logic is to enable faster clearance of goods, the smooth flow of traffic, and critically avoid congestion at key pinch points like the Port of Dover and Eurotunnel.

The system will be heavily dependent on the technology, cooperation between the UK and EU authorities and the awareness/willingness of those trading in goods between the UK and the EU. In practice, at pinch points like Dover there will be limited physical checks of freight, as the prospect of gridlock in the south-east corner of England, where it has been said that an additional 2 minute control on freight will result in a 20km tailback on either side of the Channel, cannot easily be addressed by other measures.

To the EU such weakness in customs control and the threat that it risks to the integrity of the single market is unlikely to find favour. It will be considered tantamount to a smuggler’s charter. To UK citizens the irony of the customs proposals should not be lost either. Central to May’s Brexit position is the idea that by leaving the EU the EU the UK will “take bake control”. For a growing number of observers, her proposals on customs risk the exact opposite, resulting in a loss of control and making the UK a smuggler’s paradise for contraband, counterfeit, people and all other forms of illicit trade.

]]>Germany is back – but is it for real?http://www.cambre-associates.com/germany-is-back-but-is-it-for-real/
Mon, 05 Mar 2018 15:49:06 +0000http://www.cambre-associates.com/?p=1588

Germany is finally about to have a new government. It will have taken 161 days for Angela Merkel to form a coalition since the 2017 elections – a new record. These 161 days may have changed Germany as we know it: Angela Merkel’s Germany that was for a long time perceived as an anchor of stability and (sometimes exaggerated) political rationalism in Europe.

This is our perspective of what will change with the new coalition of CDU, CSU and SPD; who are the new leaders in the government to watch; and what this means for Europe. It may not seem as if much has changed since the German elections in September 2017. The Social democrats voted on Sunday [...]

]]>This is our perspective of what will change with the new coalition of CDU, CSU and SPD; who are the new leaders in the government to watch; and what this means for Europe.

It may not seem as if much has changed since the German elections in September 2017. The Social democrats voted on Sunday March 4 in favour of a new Grand Coalition with the CDU – already the third in the past 13 years. Angela Merkel is still Chancellor, competing with Helmut Kohl for the longest term of Chancellorship in German history. And last week, the German Federal Employment Agency announced unemployment rates that continue to be on a record low since the country’s reunification. Many in Brussels even fear the Germanification of EU politics since the nomination of Martin Selmayr as Secretary-General of the European Commission. From the outside, it looks like business as usual.

But don’t get blinded by the lights. Much has changed since September. We have seen the beginning of the end of the seamlessly eternal Merkel-era, the awakening of her potential successors, and the continued decline of the SPD. The elections have been nothing less than an earthquake for the German party system and leadership, and will very likely have an impact on EU policymaking. Old certainties (and stabilities) start to vanish.

The CDU and the dawn of Angela Merkel

Angela Merkel’s fourth term as Chancellor will very likely be her last one. And for many, its end cannot come early enough. While her anaesthetic governing style was admired by many for a long time, her stoic rationalism became a symptom of her approaching dawn with the disappointing results of the 2017 elections. The public absence of Angela Merkel during the chaotic coalition negotiations further nourished the power vacuum in her party. For many, the tip of the iceberg was reached when the CDU found itself without the prestigious Ministry of Finance in the coalition contract.

But contrary to many political leaders who missed their chance of leaving the political stage at the right time, Merkel managed to stage her long-term retirement and appease both loyal followers and opponents. The past weeks thus gave rise to two politicians who are likely to dominate the debate around Merkel’s potential successorship.

The first name political observers should get used to very quickly is Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer – popular Prime Minister of the small state of Saarland, well-known favourite of Merkel, and since last week new Secretary General of the CDU, elected in a Merkel-style suit with an all-time record of 98.9%.

In another smart move, Angela Merkel designated one of her most popular opponents, Jens Spahn, as new Minister of Health. Spahn is the new hope of the CDU’s conservative wing. But contrary to Kramp-Karrenbauer, the young Minister lacks political experience. With his ambitious health agenda – focusing on tackling medical deserts in rural areas, the lack of nursing staff, and an improvement of public health insurance – his new position can quickly become a pitfall. He probably should ask Ursula von der Leyen for advice, the once all-time favourite for the Merkel successorship and now rather unlucky Minister of Defence.

SPD who?

Of course it takes two to dance, and with the March 4 vote it was the SPD basis who gave the final approval of the coalition contract. But although the SPD was over-proportionately successful during the negotiations, the party will have to fight for political survival. The success of Kevin Kühnert, head of the ‘Jusos’ (short for ‘Young Socialists’), and his no-Grand-Coalition movement laid bare the deep insecurity of the old-established party. The chaotic manoeuvring of Martin Schulz and the SPD’s leadership since the September elections further fed public perception of an unprincipled party, choosing political power over defending socialist values. After Martin Schulz’ demission, the party is left with six Ministries, including the powerful Ministries of Finance and Foreign Affairs, and a deep distrust towards its leadership. Andrea Nahles, who will most probably win the race for head of party in April, and Olaf Scholz, successful mayor of the City of Hamburg and most likely in the seat of the powerful Ministry of Finance, will be the party’s last chance to rise back to its old 1990s grandeur.

German navel-gazing or European leadership?

So what do these internal turbulences at CDU and SPD mean for the EU? In Brussels, it seems as if the Commission couldn’t wait for Germany being back at the negotiation table. Pierre Moscovici, European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, is already heading to Hamburg on Tuesday to talk to Olaf Scholz.

The Grand Coalition may indeed be the option many in Brussels had hoped for. And those seeking hope for German leadership in Europe may find optimism at first sight when reading the approved coalition contract between CDU, CSU and SPD. The 179-page document starts with a pledge for ‘A new beginning for Europe’, including commitments to Franco-German leadership and a strengthened Permanent Structured Cooperation. It even mentions the potential prospect of a future Eurozone budget, calls for a stronger role of the European Parliament, and the development of a European Monetary Fund.

Coalition contracts are vague by nature though, and observers should rather follow German discussions around important EU policy files the next weeks. For example in an interview published today in the ‘Deutsche Apotheker Zeitung’, the CDU’s spokesperson for health policy, Karin Maag, already announced that Germany thinks of tabling a reasoned opinion on subsidiarity against the Commission’s HTA proposal. She went further, warning the EU to get more involved in Member States’ health policies under the pretence of strengthening the internal market. EU enthusiasm in Berlin clearly continues to have its limits.

The insecurity of both ‘people’s parties’ could also mean something no one in Europe really needs: uncertainty. CDU and SPD will not only face euro-scepticism among almost all opposition parties (apart from the Greens). With the CSU as a coalition partner, CDU and SPD can prepare for tough debates around EU migration and monetary policies. The new designated Prime Minister of Bavaria and CSU heavy-weight, Markus Soeder, already announced that he wants to win back conservative voters from the right-wing AfD during the regional elections in October. With this in mind, the German stability we got used to may vanish. As for this year, we risk witnessing the centre of Europe being occupied with itself, at a time where Brexit is inevitably approaching, and forward-looking visions for the future of Europe are needed.

In the end, all may come down again to Angela Merkel whom we learned to never write off. After most likely 16 years of reign, Merkel will certainly want to leave a positive legacy for the history books. For Helmut Kohl, this was the introduction of the Euro under his chancellorship. What will it be for ‘Kohl’s Mädchen’?

Yes, Germany is back. But let’s hope it is for real.

]]>#TechAways: The latest out of Mobile World Congresshttp://www.cambre-associates.com/cambres-techaways-issue-37/
Fri, 02 Mar 2018 15:56:51 +0000http://www.cambre-associates.com/?p=1596Subscribe. Barcelona was the tech capital of the world this week. The Mobile World Congress, the world’s largest event for the mobile industry, gathered around 100,000 participants for exhibition and conferences featuring mobile operators, device manufacturers, technology providers, vendors and content owners from across the world. The hot topics? 5G and AI, to no surprise. [...]

Barcelona was the tech capital of the world this week. The Mobile World Congress, the world’s largest event for the mobile industry, gathered around 100,000 participants for exhibition and conferences featuring mobile operators, device manufacturers, technology providers, vendors and content owners from across the world. The hot topics? 5G and AI, to no surprise. But there was much more on display, from IoT and smart devices to cybersecurity and blockchain.

Back in Brussels, policymakers have also had a techy week discussing many aspects of the digital single market, from copyright to telecoms regulations. Stakeholders are wondering if regulators will opt to incentivise or hamper digital transformation in Europe – and enable innovations like the ones announced and showcased in Barcelona.

In Eindhoven and Utrecht, smart technology is keeping tabs on traffic, noise and crime. From sound sensors that can detect verbal arguments and deploy an orange scent to “calm” the mood, to traffic sensors detecting your phone’s wifi signal – even when you’re not connected to the city’s wifi – an increasing amount of data is being collected. The Dutch Personal Data Protection Act states that people should be notified in advance of what data is being collected and why. The Dutch cities, which don’t do this, argue that because they anonymise the data, it’s ok. The thing is – the original data is still personal. While the EU closely monitors big tech with GDPR, should it also be keeping an eye on its own cities?

“Blockchain technology holds a strong promise for financial markets. To remain competitive, Europe must embrace this innovation,” Commission VP Valdis Dombrovskis said on Monday. That was the No. 1 conclusion from the first cryptocurrency roundtable. What about conclusions No. 2-6? Speculation is hazardous, consumers are not informed, issuers’ identities are cloudy, money laundering persists, and nobody knows whether or not cryptocurrencies are covered by any existing legislation. Ok – a pan-European solution, anyone? Maybe, but only if there is no “clear response” at the global level by late 2018. Meanwhile, the first ever EU FinTech Action Plan is expected within a few days.

Facebook found another way to counter radicalisation through its platform. How? By paying victims of extremism to talk to people who show signs of extremism or who share far-right or Islamist extremist material. The objective is to understand what makes extremists angry by chatting to targeted people. Although Facebook claims it’s a neutral platform, it has often been criticised, along with YouTube and Twitter, for being a hotbed for extremists. This is a good example showing that tech giants are willing to fix the misuse of their platforms when legislative bodies push them to do so.

There is no doubt pornography – and the need for more videos and faster speeds – has shaped the internet as we know it. It’s poised to do it again due to the increased use of virtual reality. However, on the other side of the camera, performers often struggle getting paid because although perfectly legal, some companies may not recognise their activities. That’s where blockchain can play a major role in the form of cryptocurrency where intermediates and censorship can be completely wiped out. With suggestive names such as Titcoin, Sexcoin, Spankchain, new platforms promise reliability and anonymity, which can be great for consumers. No more credit cards, no more user name, no passwords.